M/S. ADOBE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 read with Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by M/s. Adobe Marketing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) against Opposite Parties, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Corporation), seeking either allotment of the alternative plot/plots or refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Plot(s)alongwith interest as the Opposite Party Corporation failed to develop the area where the Plots were allotted to the Complainant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant in order to establish an industry for self-employment and earning livelihood, applied for a fully developed industrial plot of 6000 sq. mtr. but on the assurance of the Opposite Party No. 3, Haryana Sahakari Vikas Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Authority), the Complainant agreed to take possession of six different plots instead of one. Accordingly, vide allotment letter dtd. 2/3/2009, the Complainant was allotted six Industrial Plot Nos. 32, 33 and 34 and 37, 38 and 39 admeasuring 1000 sq. mtr. in the Industrial Area located at Sector 59, Phase-1, Faridabad, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Area) to be developed by the Opposite Party Authority. It was averred that initially the Plots, in question, were allotted by the Opposite Party Authority, but subsequently the function of development and allotment of industrial plots was handed over by the Opposite Party Authority to Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, i.e., Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Corporation). The Complainant deposited 70% of the total cost of plots, i.e., ?1,73,65,500/- on different dates uptill 22/11/2011. Although there was no development in the vicinity and the roads were not existing on both the sides of the plots as per the site plan, yet the Complainant had to take possession of the Plots on 22/9/2009 under the threat of forfeiture of earnest money. It is averred that the possession was a paper possession since there was neither any development in the vicinity nor access road was available on the site. Despite several visits to the office of the Opposite Party Corporation there was no response for carrying out the development work in the vicinity. The Complainant being not satisfied with the development work sought refund from the Opposite Party Corporation vide letter dtd. 31/12/2018. But having come to know about the policy of the Opposite Party Corporation for alternative allotment of plots, before processing the refund, the Complainant withdrew its request of refund vide letter dtd. 14/2/2019 and requested the Opposite Party Corporation to allot alternative plot(s) in developed area but no action was taken by the Opposite Party Corporation. It was averred that they were ready to make balance payment but the Opposite Party Corporation neither refunded the money nor allotted alternative plots or provided any information regarding the development of the area including construction of approach roads in the vicinity. Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party Corporation, the Complainant has filed the present Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party Authority. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Authority raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was submitted that as per para 17 of Complaint itself the cause of action arose on 10/12/2020. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which came into force w.e.f. 20/7/2020, would be applicable to any cause of action after the enactment of the Act. Therefore, the present Complaint could only be filed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Relying on the Judgment passed by this Commission in "M Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &Ors." vehemently submitted that it is a settled law that for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the goods or services "paid as consideration has to be considered and not the value of the goods or services "claimed" as has been erroneously done by the complainant. Since the Complainant has paid only ?1,73,65,500/- as consideration, this Commission ought not to entertain the captioned complaint on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.